Anne Bayefsky concluded that there was an
anti-Semitic agenda at Human Rights Watch based on her observations at the 2001
World Conference against Racism.
Bayefsky wrote, “When it comes to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Human Rights Watch still has a lot of explaining to do, notwithstanding Executive Director Ken Roth's umbrage at criticism.” As a participant at the
World Conference against Racism, Bayefsky also commented on how she was excluded from the meeting due to her participation with
The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, “As we arrived at our meeting the chief Durban representative of Human Rights Watch, advocacy director Reed Brody, publicly announced that as a representative of a Jewish group I was unwelcome and could not attend.”
[15]
Abraham Cooper, another participant at the
2001 World Conference against Racism, reiterated
Anne Bayefsky’s conclusions when he wrote, “Contrary to the May 27 letter by the executive directors of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International U.S.A., Anne Bayefsky (
Ending Bias in the Human Rights System, Op-Ed, May 22) was correct to criticize those two groups for their roles at the United Nations conference against racism in Durban, South Africa, last year.” Cooper added regarding the
forum document, “The concerns of one group of victims -- the Jewish people -- were left off that document, with the silent acquiescence of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.” Abraham Cooper also recounted, “Like many other Jewish delegates at the conference, I was subjected to physical intimidation and threats.”
[16]
Gerald Steinberg is one of the more vociferous
critics of Human Rights Watch. In a
2006 National Review article titled “Human-Rights Schizophrenia” Steinberg wrote, “During the height of the terror attacks against Israel, HRW focused one-third of its entire Middle East effort on condemnations directed at Israel. This went far beyond legitimate criticism, and suggested an obsession.” Steinberg asserted further, “The most infuriating instance of HRW’s bias came in 2004, when Roth went to the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem to promote “Razing Rafah,” a one sided denunciation of Israeli policy. Its contents were based primarily on unsubstantiated reports of Palestinians, selected journalists, and so-called experts on tunneling.” He concluded with, “So either it is I, along with other critics of HRW, who blindly oppose legitimate criticism of Israel (it might be dismissed as part of a neoconservative ideology), or it is Roth and HRW who apply different and unique criteria that single out Israel unfairly. The evidence shows that it is the latter.”
[17]
Isi Leibler, a columnist for
The Jerusalem Post, stated that Human Rights Watch is among the groups that, “Have long track records of bias and employing double standards in relation to Israel.”
[18]
In an address to the
Anti-Defamation League, a former
Foreign Minister of
Spain,
Ana Palacio, asserted that Human Rights Watch ignored
anti-Semitism as an issue of importance over other
human rights issues, such as
gay or
refugee rights. In this address she stated, “Disinterested NGOs like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International pay little attention to anti-Semitism.”
[19]
